First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Cynicism-
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 10/10/10
When Obama & the Democrats came into office, he promised a cure-all to all of Mr Bush's fuck-ups. Now that it is the Republican's turn to offer the nation its Panacea to all our country's problem. How do they still expect us not to be cynical about the affairs of politics and the running of the government?
6268 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / The Netherlands
Offline
Posted 10/11/10
Well, the promise of curing all of ''Bush faults'' is a empty promise ofcourse, It's probably impossible to end all problems caused in 8 years in just 3 years, sollutions just need more time then that.
The people who expected miracles from Obama are in my eyes even more naieve then I am (and I am..... very naieve).

Time heals most problems in my eyes 3 or 4 years isn't enough to change the world ''again''.
Posted 10/11/10 , edited 10/11/10
It's always easier and faster to destroy than to rebuild. And unfortunately in a world of socialized instant gratification stemmed from consumerism, the irony is that those who deliberately practice self-control are the selfish psychopaths.

Then again, your freedom of speech amendment without regulation on telling lies was the cause of this political practice in the first place:

What about a non-religious non-profit corporation, like the United Way or the Boy Scouts? If they issue a press release about their organizational policies, is that free speech which is protected by the First Amendment? Once again, this sounds perfectly reasonable — and even if the press release is less than truthful and contains little more than propaganda, it would still be protected. But why?

It seems that the issue here is the expression of a “point of view” — an opinion which may or may not be true, but which we certainly believe. When we express an opinion in an effort to get someone to buy a car, we are doing something slightly different from when we express an opinion in an effort to get someone to “buy” our ideas on religion or politics.

This is a very subtle distinction, however, and it may not always be easy to maintain in practice. After all, religious organizations and non-religious non-profit groups do solicit money, either as donations or in exchange for goods and services. Why should they get privileges unavailable to Coca Cola or General Motors?

Nike’s statements may or may not have been truthful; they may or may not have been propaganda. Why is “commercial propaganda” held to different standards than “religious propaganda” or “political propaganda”? Granted, commercial propaganda is designed to help a corporation sell products and secure a profit, but is lying in pursuit of that worse than lying in pursuit of political office? Corporations that lie are fined and sued; politicians who lie simply put a spin on things and end up getting elected.(citation)
3066 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
76 / M
Offline
Posted 10/11/10
I'm not taking any side whether its Pro-Obama, Pro-Democrat, Pro-Bush, Pro-Republican, Pro-Bush/Republican, or Pro-Obama/Democrat, but it's certain harsh to expect an entire fix of all of Bush's fuck ups.

Considering how Obama came into presidency with USA in a war and in a large national debt with many other ailing issues; it's difficult to expect a miracle from him considering how our government doesn't allow Obama to simply make all the shots. Our government is split into many different branches and attempting to create the ideal change involves a lot of Democrat vs Republican bureaucracy bullshit which can last ages.
Posted 10/12/10 , edited 10/12/10
Obama is riding a massive ego trip so hard that he'll never focus on the task at hand entirely. I feel that all America can do is feed off the problems we've collectively created for ourselves. We'll go to war countless more times funded by money we don't have and needlessly ''prove'' our so-called ''worth'' when we just need to get off the diet pills and start fucking improving the way we conduct ourselves (referring to some of my fellow Americans) around here.

Ludicrous behavior is rampant today. Let's get back to reality for once.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 10/17/10

Northerner wrote:

Obama is riding a massive ego trip so hard that he'll never focus on the task at hand entirely. I feel that all America can do is feed off the problems we've collectively created for ourselves. We'll go to war countless more times funded by money we don't have and needlessly ''prove'' our so-called ''worth'' when we just need to get off the diet pills and start fucking improving the way we conduct ourselves (referring to some of my fellow Americans) around here.

Ludicrous behavior is rampant today. Let's get back to reality for once.


Any suggestions beside the usual 'kick Obama and his party out and put other incompetent fools in their place' strategy?
Posted 10/17/10

longfenglim wrote:


Northerner wrote:

Obama is riding a massive ego trip so hard that he'll never focus on the task at hand entirely. I feel that all America can do is feed off the problems we've collectively created for ourselves. We'll go to war countless more times funded by money we don't have and needlessly ''prove'' our so-called ''worth'' when we just need to get off the diet pills and start fucking improving the way we conduct ourselves (referring to some of my fellow Americans) around here.

Ludicrous behavior is rampant today. Let's get back to reality for once.


Any suggestions beside the usual 'kick Obama and his party out and put other incompetent fools in their place' strategy?


Nope. So much for anything I had to say.

The next line of criminals to run America will likey be the same or worse than what there is now.
4930 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / F / Singapore
Offline
Posted 10/26/10
To blame everything on Bush's administration is pure ignorance. All one has to do is trace back the steps of the housing bubble and wall street's actions to know this.
Posted 10/26/10

kitoka wrote:

To blame everything on Bush's administration is pure ignorance. All one has to do is trace back the steps of the housing bubble and wall street's actions to know this.
Of course, for that would be extreme in and of itself. However they did turned their back on their voters, when they had their chance at Wall Street economic reform:

Main Street vs. Wall Street

The controversy over the tax reform plan has its roots in a deeper debate within the Bush administration - between the social conservatives and the fiscal conservatives.

Mr Bush's electoral coalition succeeded in uniting these two disparate groups.

But now both are restive.

The social conservatives have been upset by Mr Bush's abortive attempt to make his personal lawyer Harriet Miers a supreme court justice. The man replacing her as a candidate, federal appeals court judge Samuel Alito, may be more to their liking, but it is not yet guaranteed that he will fundamentally change the balance of power in the court, thus leading the way to challenge laws on abortion and other social issues.

And fiscal conservatives are concerned about the burgeoning budget deficit and the lack of restraint on federal spending in the first Bush administration.

For Main Street Republicans, who tend to be struggling homeowners, proposals such as simplifying the tax code by eliminating mortgage tax breaks are likely to prove highly unpopular, as they are already facing rising house prices and debt.

"We are starting to see some pain here," says Liz Ann Sonders, investment strategist at Charles Schwab.(citation)
That was 2005, while the first subprime mortgage crisis came around 2007:

April 2, 2007 - New Century Financial, one of the nation's largest subprime mortgage lenders files for bankruptcy court protections, cutting 3,200 jobs, or 54% of its remaining work force that had already been scaled back in previous weeks as it stopped accepting new loans.(citation)
So when the government wasn't doing the check 'n balance, neither did Wall Street:

MARGARET WARNER: So it wasn't the lenders; it wasn't the home-buyers. It's Wall Street that's at the root of all this? How so?

PAUL MUOLO: Well, they were the fuel guy on top. They had the big gasoline can of what we call "money," lending to these non-bank subprime lenders who in turn lent to consumers.

Wall Street's end game here was to more or less take over what we call the non-prime mortgage industry and take all these loans, create bonds, make fees all along the way, and sell these bonds to investors overseas and in the U.S.

If you take Wall Street out of the equation, this crisis is much, much smaller. They saw dollars in them thar hills. They saw gold, and they went after it.

MARGARET WARNER: And these loans were obviously risky?

PAUL MUOLO: Well, that's a good question. I mean, they were believing that home prices would keep going up forever in hot markets like Orange County, California, Florida, take your pick. They believe they'd always be bailed out by home equity. And if something went bad, they'd just sell the house and be out.

MARGARET WARNER: But what you're saying, it was really Wall Street and the availability of money, and their scheme -- I don't say that pejoratively -- but to them turn them into bonds, essentially to resell them, that changed the traditional model of lending?

PAUL MUOLO: Right. Most Americans might look to that movie, "It's a Wonderful Life," Bailey Building and Loan, where go into their S&L, their bank, they get a loan, they hold the mortgage forever. The model...

MARGARET WARNER: So your local banker cares about whether you can pay it back?

PAUL MUOLO: Well, usually. One of the things that changed with Wall Street in this non-prime model, they thought they had built a better mousetrap where they used these independent loan brokers. They get table-funded through a non-bank lender, which Wall Street's also financing.

Wall Street takes all the loans. They outsource the underwriting, the review of the documents, to a company like Clayton. And then, again, they package the loans into bonds. They have as little cost as possible. They don't want full-time employees. They thought they had built a better mousetrap. That was their goal.
(citation)
In other words, they used their own mortgage to buy their own houses, and turned their own houses into bonds, thus doubling the worth of their real estates as future currency while at the same time artificially driving up housing prices.

However, the Wall Street weren't the first ones who did this to themselves. While Japan already at their 3rd stage of subprime mortgage crisis, China OTOH only knows how to hide theirs relatively well.
65911 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 10/28/10

orangeflute wrote:

When Obama & the Democrats came into office, he promised a cure-all to all of Mr Bush's fuck-ups. Now that it is the Republican's turn to offer the nation its Panacea to all our country's problem. How do they still expect us not to be cynical about the affairs of politics and the running of the government?


the real fuck up is Nancy and Hairy, they been in power for over * years now and run the budget. Pull your head out and understand how domestic policy and program are run. I personally only a real fool trust politicians, of any party. Libertarian is my choice but if they go against my beliefs then I will choose the one that comes the closest to my judgement. Look at the plat form they run with and if they fall into the rank and fill of any party that person not worth my vote. To me they place party first then the people somewhere at the bottom special interest groups have to much power to suit my taste in government.---------------------Fair Tax is one thing I support get rid of the IRS and 11,000 page tax code.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 10/28/10 , edited 10/28/10
Well at least with teh republicans taxes will go down ~ so can at least call that one a win.


However when the repubs take congress the govt will be gridlocked for the next 2 years and nothing will get done. Obama will simply veto anything they send his way.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 10/30/10

Allhailodin wrote:

Well at least with teh republicans taxes will go down ~ so can at least call that one a win.


However when the repubs take congress the govt will be gridlocked for the next 2 years and nothing will get done. Obama will simply veto anything they send his way.


You actually believe that they will keep their promises?
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 10/30/10

longfenglim wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:

Well at least with teh republicans taxes will go down ~ so can at least call that one a win.


However when the repubs take congress the govt will be gridlocked for the next 2 years and nothing will get done. Obama will simply veto anything they send his way.


You actually believe that they will keep their promises?


It remains to be seen, but lower taxes is a core republican belief, so probably taxes will go down.
Posted 10/31/10 , edited 10/31/10

Allhailodin wrote:



It remains to be seen, but lower taxes is a core republican belief, so probably taxes will go down.
And what makes lowering taxes an objectively moral thing to do? When the Republicans could just be saying that without good reason nor conscience, for they want a government that's just as irresponsible and unregulated as their constituents and lobbies are.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 10/31/10 , edited 10/31/10

DomFortress wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:



It remains to be seen, but lower taxes is a core republican belief, so probably taxes will go down.
And what makes lowering taxes an objectively moral thing to do? When the Republicans could just be saying that without good reason nor conscience, for they want a government that's just as irresponsible and unregulated as their constituents and lobbies are.


But it lowers the burden on the economy and will allow job creation. Unless your saying you support 1 in 7 Americans being in poverty because of unemployment.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.